Legion

K: I was so disappointed in Legion. I love action/sci-fi movies so I was kind of excited to see this one. I know the reviews weren't good, but I don't listen to movie critics because they tend not to appreciate the action/sci-fi genre as much as I do. First the good points: Paul Bettany is nice to look at; and the best scene in the whole movie was when the fry cook ninja chucked a cast iron frying pan at the freaky old lady's head. Bad points: a whole lot of nothing happened; Dennis Quaid; it was never explained why this baby, of all the babies in the world waiting to be born, was the one that could save the human race; and the thing I hated most was the stupid, moron guy who was supposed to be the protector of the girl and her baby. He was such an idiot that I was seriously wondering if they were going to give us the revelation that he was borderline mentally handicapped. Very irritating. I'm sorry to say that I don't recommend this movie at all. Don't even rent it.

J: Ok, so there’s these people in a diner in the middle of the desert and one of them is pregnant but what they don’t know is that God has given up on mankind and has ordered Archangel Michael to kill the baby so He can destroy the human race.

You now know all there is to know about the plot of this abysmal movie. Unfortunately, the director, Scott Stewart and the writer, Peter Schnick seemed to feel the need to explain even more about this tissue thin plot – ad nauseum! I spent most of the time watching this film (an hour & 40 minutes of my life that I would dearly like to get back!) waiting for something to happen; and waiting and waiting. But, sadly, nothing happened. With the exception of the ninja frying pan scene my PIC mentioned and an ice cream guy that turns into an arachnid, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. That this movie got even one star is a testament to a couple of good actors. Paul Bettany as Michael does the best he can with this meager script and Charles Dutton, as the cook in the diner, is always good for being the guy who spouts scripture when needed. And then we come to Dennis Quaid. I have to admit that he did a fairly good job in The Day After Tomorrow but after mucking up a prize with loads of potential like Pandorum, I’m pretty much done with trying to justify the dramatic range of a flea. Dennis Quaid makes Chistian Bale seems like Sir Lawrence Olivier!

This film could really have benefited from some special effects and gratuitous violence, at least something would be happening to break up the overly long explanations of family history and God getting cheesed off at the human race. But directors, please take note – we were over the really big mouth spewing whatever effect after The Mummy Returns so STOP USING IT! Honestly, because humans were capable of making a movie this bad would be enough for me to justify blowing mankind away. And, by the way, two Archangels trading effectual blows at the very end of the movie does not a Legion make.

So, please use the hour and a half you would spend watching this movie to do something more worthwhile – like contemplating your navel or gathering toe jam. Do anything, but stay away from this movie! You’re welcome.

Daybreakers

J: I have lately heard critics lamenting the recent glut of vampire movies and, while I agree to some extent, I have to say that “Daybreakers” provides at least an entertaining new twist on the genre.

It’s the year 2019 and the vampires haven’t been made in the traditional way, they are a result of a viral epidemic. As most of the world’s population is turned to bloodsuckers (how could the politicians stand the competition?) the powerbrokers naturally figure out a way to make money off the misery. As the virus spreads and humans become outnumbered by vampires some allow themselves to be turned while others decide that little scenario bites. Those poor schmucks have only two choices, go underground to retain their humanity or be captured and farmed for their blood by the new super-corporation run by Charles Bromley, played by a wonderfully creepy Sam Neill (guess Bill Nighy was busy!). And so the world keeps perking along although with a few MINOR differences, like blood in the Starbucks coffee, everything happening at night and cars customized for driving in the daylight if absolutely necessary.

There’s one itsy-bitsy problem, however. These suckers are running rapidly out of blood. So, to preserve their cash flow, the corporation puts their crack hematologists, headed by Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) on the fast track to developing a synthetic substitute, but it’s not going well and the results are pretty ugly. Meantime, riots are breaking out all over the world as the supply trickles down to nearly nothing and Mr. Bromley is suffering a bottom line breakdown because the rich vamps are removing their personal supplies from his ghastly hanging garden of human blood bovines. Oh yeah, and when deprived of blood, these pretty little fanged humans turn into neat creatures that we would normally associate with being a vampire – human façade gone poof!

A happy accident, well car accident actually, leads Edward to Lionel “Elvis” Cormac, played by Willem Dafoe, who was a vampire and accidently (again a car accident) cured himself by burning in the daylight before dowsing himself in water. This leads Edward to the cure he’s looking for but he has a little trouble selling that to the corporate geeks. See, they are more interested in the steady cash from the rich vampires than watching their profits burn up as everyone returns to non-sucking humans.

Now, even though I approached this flick with low expectations and was at this point guessing at the predictable ending for all this blood and gore, I was pleasantly surprised with a pretty nifty twist to the end. Not to mention, copious amounts of the aforementioned blood and gore – something that I will not hesitate to remind my PIC about next time she says “no” to a zombie movie! So, I will not be the spoiler here but will suggest that anyone who adores a well acted bloodbath ooze on over to their Cineplex and indulge in Daybreakers. Oh yeah, it actually made me jump once and believe me when I say that does not happen very often – BONUS!

K: I, like my PIC, was also pleasantly surprised. I liked that it wasn't your typical rehashed vampire movie plot. I'm always a sucker for an original story - and vampires running out of blood is pretty original. And I loved the little twists in the story that I didn't see coming. I also have to say that I enjoyed the gore, much to my surprise. I haven't seen a gory movie in a long time so it was good to get into a couple scenes that were bloodbaths.

In addition to good story, Sam Neill, Ethan Hawke, and Willem Defoe all did a tremendous job with their roles. I love when good actors aren't afraid to take on a fantasy/sci-fi role when presented with a good script. This was a darn good movie. I don't know why it was shelved for two years. I'm glad it finally got to see the light of day (pun intended).

Avatar

J: “Avatar” (which should also be known as “James Cameron Saves Hollywood”) was so exquisitely beautiful it reduced me to tears for most of the movie. Sure that’s an awful lot of hyperbole, which isn’t like me at all, so let’s temper it a bit. Having said all that, I’m the first to admit the message in the movie, or at least the delivery of said message, is a little heavy-handed. The one thing I think everyone can agree on is that, once again, James Cameron has moved filmmaking to a whole new amazing level – something that only a handful of directors can claim. Yes, it cost several human limbs and maybe a first-born or two, but the beauty of that is once the technology is in place, the rest is gravy. Just ask Peter Jackson and George Lucas. The perfect blending of live actors and stunning animation in 3D is clearly where Hollywood was heading – it’s the best of both worlds.

I’m not going to rehash the plot because if you haven’t seen it yet you probably aren’t going to and if you have, you’re probably on your third or fourth viewing. But I would like to talk about something my PIC said – that Avatar is just “Dances With Wolves” on steroids. It’s a fair comparison but I think that’s just the point. The Earthlings are doing just what Earthlings do best – exploiting natural resources to the point of destruction and seizing whatever they want, whether it’s there for the taking or it belongs to someone else and violently if necessary. Basically, if you are weaker, you’re toast! But the message I really appreciated was the close connection the Na’vi on planet Pandora had to the natural world around them; the importance they gave to the plants, trees and animals – even the ones they killed for food were honored in death and not destroyed wantonly or without respect. A little more of that attitude in this world would be a welcome change.

What made me cry? The sheer beauty of the planet Pandora and the feeling in 3D that it surrounded me; that I felt I was really there was a breathtaking experience. The little bugs that floated around in the air looked so real I was tempted to reach out and touch them. Jungle paths that lighted up when the Na’vi walked on them and then went dark after they passed – what an imagination!

What made me mad? Yes, I now circle back to the heavy-handed delivery of the message. I think the military “bad guys” would have been better served, and would have given critics a bit less ammo, if the reprisals had been toned down a bit. Well, maybe toned down isn’t the right phrase; how about a bit less of it. I didn’t need 45 minutes of nuclear bombing and Marine hoo-ra to “get it”. The other really glaring thing for me was the object of all this greed and avarice – some goofy rock called “unobtanium”. Are you kidding me? What a stupid name! And we never get to know what it was the silly rock did – unless I was swooning and missed it! The other thing I believe is going to bother me after my second or third time seeing Avatar (you bet – I’ll support a genius like Cameron!) is the rather flatness of the characters but I’m sure that will be addressed in the next movie – yes, of course there’ll be another 10 or 15 – this is Hollywood, right? I also would like to have seen a bit more redemption from some of the characters – notably, Giovanni Ribisi’s corporate suck-up administrator, Parker Selfridge, who is this mysterious unobtainium’s biggest fan. It was hinted at for a moment but then he was being packed off back to the dying Earth with the rest of the military grunts. Maybe next time?

I do admire what this movie has done as well as what it tries hard to represent and really do look forward to the next installment, and the next, and the next….. well, you know the drill.

J's Best of Picks for 2009

J: Yes, the inevitable year-end wrap up. However, not being much for lists per se, I’m going to put my two cents worth in a bit differently than my PIC did. Here goes:

Best Movie of 2009: I gave this an awful lot of thought because I was torn between two excellent films. However, I had to be true to my review and stick with “2012” as the best movie of the year. As a long-time loyal Trekkie this was a VERY difficult decision and, in the end, better science (more to the point, lack of science) won out. I have watched “Star Trek” several times now since its release on DVD and I just cringe when Young Spock and Old Spock have their little confab at the end of the movie – I can’t help but hear the fabric of space-time ripping to shreds in the background! My second big issue remains the infamous Red Matter. Come on now, couldn’t the writers have given just a little more thought to that? Even a made up chemical sounding name would have been better! And I’m truly sorry but watching Spock snogging Uhura every chance he got still turns my stomach. While those negatives broke the tie, it was the quality of the characters, the fabu special effects and the fact that 2012 lived up to my expectations that sealed the deal for me. The relatively happy ending, for an apocalypse anyway, also sold me. 2012 fits my theory about hoping for the best but preparing for the worst very nicely. Can’t wait until the DVD comes out! Congrats! Now, for a few other succulent picks:

Worst Movie of 2009: This was easy but somewhat unfair to my PIC – “New Moon” hands down. Even Michael Sheen as Aro was not enough to save this muscle bound mess. The review in the local paper named Kristen Stewart as the real vampire in this movie because she sucked the life out of it – so true. Look for a similar Worst of for 2010 because, after dragging my PIC to Avatar, I have to return the favor by seeing the next Twilight movie without the benefit of Michael Sheen to save it. Dracula help me!

Funniest Movie of 2009: Flew solo on this one – “Zombieland” was the funniest movie I’ve seen in awhile and got bonus points for having zombies in it. Doesn’t get much better than that, folks!

Best Movie With Vampires and Extremely Sexy Lycans of 2009: Yeah, that’s right! I felt so bad that I couldn’t fit “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” much less any other of the Michael Sheen movies we saw this year – although I gave “Frost-Nixon” consideration as Best of the Year – that I decided to make up a Best of just for him. Sue me! That’s how Team Michael rolls!

Avatar

K: I'd like to start out by saying that I did like Avatar, I just wasn't overly thrilled with it like everyone else seems to be. The animation was spectacular. I especially loved the little floating puffy things that looked like jellyfish. I wish they would have put as much effort into the script as they did the animation. The plot was trite and completely predictable. It was a half-assed Dances With Wolves wannabe that lacked any subtlety whatsoever.

My main issue with the plot is that I know it didn't have to be that bad; someone was just too lazy to care about it. I would like to point to Up and Wall-E as examples of how a high tech movie ought to be. The animation in these two were spectacular, of course. But beyond that they had me captivated in a riveting story with characters I really cared about. In my mind I was trying to justify Avatar's plot by telling myself that they were aiming for a broad audience that encompassed kids (unlike Dances With Wolves that is clearly for a mature audience only). But that argument just doesn't hold. Up and Wall-E were aimed directly at children but they bewitched and enchanted people of every age.

So I know it can be done: there can be a successful marriage between CGI technology and decent scripts. It's just up to the producers to care enough about making a quality movie and not just a flashy one.

K's Top 10 Movies of 2009

1. Star Trek
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. District 9
4. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
5. The Hangover
6. Good Hair
7. This Is It
8. Up
9. Pirate Radio
10. The Road

Star Trek probably won't get an Oscar nomination for best movie, but it should because it's clearly one of the 10 best movies of the year (if not THE best, as I state above in my list). Aside from the action and great special effects, it has a fabulous story that (re)introduces all of our favorite characters brilliantly acted by the entire cast. And since it starts from the very beginning, it's an open invitation to all to come join the experience. It's a wonderful movie that everyone should watch - especially those movie snobs who get to vote on the Oscars.

Sherlock Holmes

J: “Sherlock Holmes” is a thrilling, if a bit exhausting, piece of filmmaking and quite enjoyable. This is one of those movies that have been on our radar since the first trailer hit theaters some time ago, with its intriguing director, Guy Ritchie, and high eye-candy quotient in Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law. In those things this movie did not disappoint.

There can be little argument that Guy Ritchie is a “guy’s” director so one can expect A LOT of action sequences but very interestingly done and Sherlock Holmes is definitely all that and a bag of popcorn. BUT, and yes it’s a big “but”, this movie could have benefited by cutting the action back a bit and letting Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock do a little more cerebral sleuthing. The constant onslaught of fights, chases and explosions had me thoroughly exhausted at about two thirds through the movie.

The other hallmark of a Ritchie film is his always interesting and complex characters. In this film, he gets to put his spin on established literary characters and does a very good job of making both Holmes and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) flawed but fascinating figures. Particularly Dr. Watson, who in the past has gotten a somewhat dim-witted treatment – obviously to make Holmes seem even more the genius. This movie portrays them more as equals and actually gives the good doctor a love interest (played by Kelly Reilly), who is taking him away from Holmes and Holmes does not like that much. The opening scene finds the two men rushing to stop the antagonist, Lord Henry Blackwood (Mark Strong), from committing a ritualistic murder of a young woman. And they do so, in the nick of time, naturally. In a few months, Holmes is called to Lord Blackwood’s jail cell just prior to his hanging where Blackwood delivers some ominous warnings about murders yet to come for Holmes to chew on and we get to see that his cell walls are covered with strange occultism markings. Soon after, Lord Blackwell is hung, although not well (sorry about that – don’t often get to use a pun that good!) and Dr. Watson confirms his death. Ah, but apparently death does not come swiftly to Blackwell as his tomb is smashed open from the inside and his coffin contains the body of a red-haired dwarf – ironically, the same dwarf a certain woman from Holmes’ past has hired him to find. Rachel McAdams plays Irene Adler, an American con artist who is the only person to outsmart Holmes – twice in fact, which doesn’t say much for this Holmes’ ability to keep his fly buttoned.

Even though we have had a couple of fights and at least one extended chase scene by this point, the action only continues to ramp up, with fights and explosions in abundance. And this is my one issue with this movie. As I said at the very beginning, the action sequences, while well done and very exciting, overpower the film and take away what should be the true heart of this movie – Holmes and Watson cleverly observing clues and making all the correct assumptions. All of the clues that Holmes collects throughout the course of the film are explained away in a few scant minutes at the end of the movie. Rarely, really only in Holmes’ descriptions of his coupe-de-gras in beating his fight opponents, do we ever get to witness the super-human ability of Holmes to grasp and correlate the clues as he goes along in his investigations. And that is exactly what any Sherlock Holmes movie is supposed to accomplish. While I have no problems with the new takes on the characters and did very much enjoy the “buddy movie” feel in the relationship between Holmes and Watson (including some very witty repartee), Sherlock Holmes is a detective who can take the most mundane item and turn it into the solution to the crime – something that was missed by all others – and that is what this film needs to be a worthy Sherlock Holmes picture. Now, as we clearly get the set-up for the next movie in the introduction of a truly Holmes-ian character (won’t be the spoiler here) it would be well worth mentioning this small bit of advice. Hopefully, in the next installment, we will see a more cerebral Holmes that is less the pugilist and more the brilliant detective.

K: This was a fun movie and I enjoyed watching it, but it could have used about 20 minutes of editing in the middle of the movie. I would have liked to have seen more of Holmes' powers of deduction in action instead of saving it all up for the end. However, I definitely recommend it to everyone.